Why Do Judges Wear Black Robes? Why Do Judges Wear Black Robes? Photo courtesy of HuffingtonPost.com by: Meghan Collins, Graphic Designer To wear robes and wigs, or to not wear robes and wigs: that is the question. When the United States declared its independence from England, the Founding Fathers set out to create a government. It is not surprising that they used English common law as the basis of our society’s laws and proceedings. Apparently, the Founding Fathers also debated judicial dress. Thomas Jefferson, and a few of his peers, wanted judges to wear suits in order to rid the vestige of the English era. John Adams, on the other hand, wanted to keep the tradition alive. The Founding Fathers did what they did best, and compromised. They ditched the itchy powdered wigs and kept the robes. Supreme Court Justices wore scarlet or ermine (fur) robes in keeping with the English tradition. Chief Justice John Marshall declared that “black was the new red” during his swearing in ceremony in 1801. Marshall did not actually say those words but by simply foregoing the scarlet robe that was traditionally worn by Supreme Court Justices, he changed the dress code.

[1] Marshall was quite the trendsetter, because judges in the United States have been wearing black ever since. As with most of our judicial proceedings, the tradition of robes came from the English, but why were the English wearing robes in the first place? The wearing of robes by justices can be dated back to the 15th century. Judges on the King’s Bench wore scarlet, green, violet, and black robes depending on the fashions of the time. In 1635, dress rules established that violet roes should be worn in the summer and black for the winter. The dress rules also established that scarlet robes should be worn on ceremonial occasions and on circuit in criminal court. [2] The origins of wearing the black robe, as is done today, are debated amongst historians. Most historians say that the black robe tradition in England started with the multiple-year mourning of the death of Queen Mary II in 1694. Karen Michalson, an attorney in Massachusetts, found an engraving of a Henry Rolle, Chief Justice from the King’s Bench wearing a black robe, pre-dating 1694.

She points out that “black robes were ‘in the mix’ so to speak before Queen Mary II died. It is possible, however, that the official mourning period . . . gave impetus to what was already an existing theme.” [3] Other historians point to the scholarly tradition of wearing togas, and then robes, as the source for judicial wear. Judicial robes are a lot like the gowns worn to graduations, so the scholarly connection may prove superior. Nevertheless, judges wear black robes because of tradition. Some states in the U.S. have rules defining what justices can wear, while most do not. Former Idaho Supreme Court Justice, Byron Johnson, chose to wear a royal blue robe stating in a letter to his friend that he sat in the “black and blue” court. [4] The black robes will most likely continue in the United States for a long time to come, because we are a country rooted in tradition. However, everyone, especially judges, should take a moment to thank Thomas Jefferson for convincing John Adams to nix those ridiculous powdered wigs.

[1] Cliff Sloan and David McKean, The Great Decision: Jefferson, Adams, Marshall, and the Battle for the Supreme Court 47 (Public Affairs 2009). [2] James G. McLaren, Judicial Robes and Idaho’s “Black and Blue” Court, 41 Advoc. 14 (1998). [3] Karen A. Michalson, Nyla asks: Why judges wear black robes? (March 30, 2011). [4] James G. McLaren, Judicial Robes and Idaho’s “Black and Blue” Court, 41 Advoc. 14 (1998). Peers_Robes The Coronation and Parliamentary Robes of the British Peerage originally published (1999) 5 (1) Arma, the Journal of the Heraldry Society of Southern Africa 289-293 Coronation Robes As early as the end of the fourteenth century the greater peers wore distinctive robes of state.(1) One of the first recorded instance was the robe conferred upon John Beaufort Earl of Somerset, in 1397.

These included robes, mantles, and hoods of scarlet furred with miniver.(2) The mantles were open on the right shoulder, and guarded with two, three or four bars of miniver in the form of short stripes high up on the shoulder. As with the gowns of judges, these were of the same general pattern as medi\'e6 val doctors after the latter had adopted scarlet in about 1340. Dukes, marquesses, and earls received robes in the late fifteenth century, which resembled the almuce. Viscounts received robes in the sixteenth century. In the early seventeenth century the robes, or mantles, were of a circular cut, open from the shoulder o n the right hand side, and with a short slit at the front of the neck. They might be fur-lined. From the centre front to the centre back, across the right shoulder, and side were miniver guards, consisting of bars of white fur with a gold lace edging above each bar.

By 1685, when barons at last received robes of estate, the robes peers wore at coronations were standardised as being of crimson velvet cloaks or robes of foot length, extending slightly to trail the ground at the back, open front, lined and edge d miniver fur, and a hood, tippet or cape of miniver. Later rows or "doublets" of black ermine tails(3) replaced the bars of miniver on the right shoulder. The robes had sometimes varied to purple. The mantle was lined with white taffeta, the mantle doubl ed from neck to below the elbow the ermine. By 1788 a white fur turn-down collar had been added to the ermine cape. These robes were given at the investiture and not worn again except at coronations. Coronation robes now consist of a crimson silk Genoa vel vet surcoat(4) and a full-length crimson velvet(5) mantle, fully lined with white silk satin,(6) with a small cape or hood of Canadian ermine(7) with rows of ermine tails, which extend around the full width of the cape, with the half rows extending from the right front edge to the centre back.

The mantle is cut slightly longer at the back to give the effect of a small train. The rank of the wearer is shown by sealskin spots on the ermine cape. There are four rows for a duke, three and a half of a marquess, three for an earl, two and a half for a viscount, and two for a baron. A royal duke has six rows of ermine, and ermine on the front. The robes differ from the early design only in having a triangle of dark red silk let into the centre of the ermine and miniver hood at the back. This was introduced with the advent of the tye wigs in the mid eighteenth century. The coronation robe is more cloak-like, front-opening, and only fastened at the neck. Beneath the mantle in the early seventeenth century was worn a crimson velvet kirtle or surcoat, lined with white taffeta. This was a long, sleeveless, loose, open-fronted garment, girdled at the waist with a silk sash. This has a shoulder cape, and the edges and opening were trimmed with white fur.

During the eighte enth century the surcoats became smaller and eventually disappeared.(8) The state robe or mantle is now worn over full dress regimentals, or uniform, or black velvet court dress of the old style. The hood in the early seventeenth century was worn over the kirtle, under the mantle. It was a type of shoulder cape with a small hood proper as an appendage at the back. The hood proper was pulled out and hung down over the mantle. Formerly, a doublet and trunk of white satin, trimmed with gold brocade of plate lac e of van dyke fringe, was worn, as was a pair of white china silk pantaloons with feet, and a pair of white cotton drawers. A pair of white kid gloves trimmed with velvet check gold fringe, was worn, as were a pair of white kid shoes. A pair of knee and s h oe crimson ribbon rosettes were also worn. Those peers taking part in the coronation were required to have mantle, crimson velvet surcoat, knee breeches and, coronet.(9) Those not in the procession were permitted either a mantle of an order of chivalry, or parliamentary robes. These were worn over evening dress, with trousers.

If of the degree of viscount or baron a cap of state was an acceptable alternative to a coronet. A coronation sword, scabbard and belt, covered with crimson velvet, and with gilt moun tings, is worn. The golden rod of the dukes disappeared with the formal investiture ceremony, but is still referred to in the patent of creation. It now appears in the investiture of the Prince of Wales. For the coronation of King George IV in 1820, a ful l set of coronation robes for a baron, complete with a fine linen(10) robe and coronet case, and a cedar robe chest with patent lock, brass hinges, and inscription plate, cost ï¿½3250. Peeresses' Coronation Robes Peeresses' wear coronation robes of the same cr imson velvet, but are very different in style. Instead of the peers' edge-to-edge robe with its miniver cape, a peeresses robe is close-fitting, open down the front, and has short fitted sleeves, and a small cape across the shoulders, and a a train. Peere sses have no Parliamentary Robes, as they are not members of the Upper House.

But they do have Coronation Robes. In the earliest instances these were an crimson velvet open robe or kirtle, with bodice. They were closed in front with a stomacher and had a t rained overskirt, worn over a contrasting petticoat or underskirt. A separate train was tipped with a cape of miniver powdered with rows of ermine according to rank, fell from the shoulders of the bodice, where it could be sewn or attached by cords. Short sleeves and the open edges of the overskirt were cut scalloped. Borders of the neckline, sleeves, train and overskirt were of miniver or ermine, as was the stomacher. A heavy silver or gilt cord girdle around the waist knotted in front, ends falling below knee, where ended in large tassels. Gold lace and galloon often ornamented the bodice. There was usually a white silk lining to the kirtle and train. In 1902 the coronation robes were of crimson velvet, with separate bodice and skirt, stomacher panels. In 1911 the bodice and skirt were joined.

In 1953 the robe or kirtle was a one-piece gown, open the full length down the centre front, edged with miniver, either plain or scalloped. They were shaped to the waist, secured by a clasp or gold cord girdle, or left unfastened. Short sleeves have in general two miniver bands and a scalloped miniver edging, sometimes one. In 1935 Norman Hartnell designed a new robe. This was a trained, open robe or gown, sleeveless, with an all-round cape collar of white fur, powder ed with ermine according to rank. This was of crimson velvet, lined with white silk and the traditional white fur border. The length of the train and the width of the ermine edging denote rank. The train of a duchess is two yards long, and has a 5" ermine edging. For a marchioness, the size is one and three quarters yards and 4", for a countess one and a halfyards and 3", for a viscountess one and a quarter yards and 2", and for a baroness 1 yard and 2".

The robes are worn with long white kid gloves, at least from the beginning of this century. In 1953 viscountesses and baronesses were permitted to wear a crimson velvet mantle with white coney cape and rows, with six yards of material. They wore a crimson velveteen cap of estate, trimmed with gold braid. Duchesses, marchionesses and countesses were re quired to wear a crimson silk velvet mantle with ermine cape and rows, and coronet. The robe had twenty yards of material, and the whole cost ten times the cost of the cheaper version. Parliamentary Robes Distinct "Parliamentary robes" are recognisable in the fifteenth century. In the sixteenth century they were of close-woven scarlet pure wool cloth, and were open halfway down on each side, and edged and collared with miniver. They had miniver bars to indicate rank, on the right side and side to centre of back 3" bars of miniver lined with 2" bands of gold lace.

They were given to barons shortly afterwards.(11) Investiture, or Coronation Robes, have only been worn at Coronations since the formal investiture was replaced by the informal practice of introduci ng peers in 1621. The Parliamentary robes were worn till the late eighteenth century at the House of Lords, and are now only worn for the State Opening of Parliament, the giving of the royal assent, and for the introduction of new peers. They were also wo rn when the peers as a body processed from the House of Lords to a Church Service or other ceremony. The Parliamentary Robe, which has changed but little since its introduction, is a full-length robe of finely-woven scarlet wool cloth,(12) and is in the for m of a mantle opening on the right shoulder, with a collar of white miniver fur, guarded with rows of ermine and gold lace round the right shoulder. They are lined with white silk. The side seams of the robe are open, and miniver bars extend from the right front edge to the side seam, and from the side seam round to the centre back. Each bar of miniver is 3" wide, and is edged with a 2" band of gold lace.

The rank of the wearer is indicated by the number of miniver bars.(13) In 1788 parliamentary robes we re of fine scarlet cloth, lined with white taffeta, doubled with four guards of ermine at equal distances with gold lace above each guard and tied up to the left shoulder by a black riband.(14) A white fur turn-down collar replaced the earlier separate ho od. This survives as a small triangular strip of red cloth at the back of the neck, emerging below the fur collar. The robe is worn over uniform by peers forming part of a procession with Her Majesty on state occasions such as the State Opening of Parliament. On ordinary occasions, such as for the introduction of new peers, it is worn over morning dress. The kirtle was never used with it. A black cocked hat is worn for the introduction of new peers, a ceremony dating in its present form, from 1621.

The black tricorne hat was introduced at the end of the seventeenth century, and since the beginning of the nineteenth century has been replaced by the cocked hat, except for the Lord Chancellor.(15) Archbishops and Bishops in the House of Lords wear purple cassock , white rochet with full sleeves and wrist bands, black doctor's convocation robe, and broad stole. If peers are robed, churchmen wear, in addition, scarlet and miniver parliamentary robes. The Archbishops wear the robe of a Duke, the Bishops, those of Ba rons. The Queen with the Prince of Wales in Parliamentary Robes Prince of Wales' Robes The Honours of the Principality of Wales traditionally comprised the coronet, ring, rod, and mantle. The Tudors added the sword, and the girdle. The golden rod of the dukes disappeared with the formal investiture ceremony, but appears in the investiture of the Prince of Wales.(16) Since 1911 the National Museum of Wales, Cardiff has kept the Prince of Wales's Verge, Prince of Wales's Sword, Prince of Wales's Coronet, and Prince of Wales's Ring, all made in 1911.

These were removed 1968, and returned 1969 with the new Prince of Wales's Coronet. The Prince of Wales's Verge or Rod of 1911 was made to a design of Sir William Goscombe John, RA, by Garrard, is. 2' 8" long, and is of three-qaurters of an inch diameter at foot. The head is formed by three winged cupids supporting a coronet, with a large amethyst forming the cap.Below the cupids are Prince of Wales's Feathers, and motto. A dragon forms the tip of the verge. It was used for the 1969 as well as the 1911 investitute. The Prince of Wales's Sword, made 1911, has a two foot seven and a half inch long blade, and a 5" hilt. It was also made to a design of Sir William Goscombe John, RA, by Garrard, and was used in 1969. The pommel of the hilt is made of two dragons grasping a coronet. The grip is interlacing bodies of dragons, and the guard their twisted tails.

The Prince of Wales's Ring (1911) was made to a design of Sir William Goscombe John, RA, by Garrard, and used in 1969 also. The 1911 mantle or robe, with doublet and sash, was designed by Sir William Goscombe John, RA. In 1969 the robes were similar to those of 1911. Ede and Ravenscroft made a mantle of purple silk velvet trimmed with fleurs de lys, embroidery all round, including the small train, white ermine cape and collar fully lined with white silk taffeta.(17) The inside facings of the robe were lined with ermine to an extent of 10" in width. The spots on the ermine cape were of black sealskin. The collar of ermine was embroidered around the edge with gold wire in the pattern of the Prince of Wales's features. The two circular gold clasps were taken from the 1911 robe worn by the previous Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII) at his investiture. The robe is on show at the National Museum of Wales, Cardiff.

Crown of Prince of Wales 1728 Crown of Prince of Wales 1902 Crown of Prince of Wales 1969 (1) In 1362 John of Gaunt, created Duke of Lancaster, received at his investiture a sword, a circlet or coronet of gold and precious stones, a cap of estate, and a golden rod. (2) Miniver, or minever, is a white fur, originally mixed or variegated, used for lining and trimming. (3) For a very long time past the original black-tipped tail of the ermine has been replaced by pieces of black fur cut out with a special steel punch. (4) No longer a gown but a short sleeveless garment. (5) Velvet, the most elaborate of the plain weaves traditionally made from silk, has a short plush pile surface, and is used for the gowns of some office-holders, and for the hats of some doctors. Velveteen is a cotton or mixed cotton and silk imitation. (6) Satin, with a glossy surface and dull back, is a closely-woven silk fabric showing much of the warp.

Satinette, or satinet, is of a cotton warp, and woollen weft. (7) Ermine, the winter coat of the Putorius erminea, an animal of the weasel family. The fur, all white except for the black tip of the tail, is extensively used in robemaking, especially for official dress. (8) None were worn in 1838. (9) The whole cost was ï¿½1,250 in 1953, and ï¿½150 in 1937. (10) A fabric woven from the fibres of flax. Cotton, or a cotton mix is now more usual. (11) Milton, Roger, The English Ceremonial Book (David & Charles, London, 1972). (12) So-called "superfine cloth". (13) A Parliamentary robe for a duke cost ï¿½344 6s in 1760, and required 7 yards of sperfine scarlet wool cloth, and 20 yards of white sarsnet.

A barons silver-gilt coronet cost 13 guineas, that of a viscount, 14 guineas. The ceremonial sword and b elt cost an additional 4 guineas. (14) By 1845 they were white ribbons, but were black again 1877, though white in 1917. (15) The eighteenth century hat with three cocks in the brim, later known as a tricorne hat, with the edge of the brim decorated with g old lace or a feather border. The hat with two cocks (the bicorne) could be folded flat, and was the most common wear for ceremonial dress after the eighteenth century. (16) Milton, Roger, The English Ceremonial Book (David & Charles, London, 1972). (17) A lso called tabby, taffeta weave, linen weave, cloth weave, checker weave and so on. There is no clearly discernible right or wrong side.

It includes batiste, billiard cloth, calico, cambric, canvas, chintz, gauze, grosgrain, handkerchief linen, hessian, h olland, lawn, muslin, panama, poplin, and most shirting, taffeta. Some 80% of all fabrics made are plain weave. It is strong and durable, but soils most readily of the principal weaves. Legal and Judicial Costume Legal and Judicial Costume Legal and Judicial Costume By Leslie Harris Legal and judicial costume is defined as special occupational dress worn by judges and members of the legal community to mark their membership in this professional group. Dress in the Early Modern Period Legal and judicial dress has its origins in royal and ecclesiastical history. Prior to the early modern period, monks and other ecclesiasts were responsible for the administration of justice in the European territories. By the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, this group was replaced by lesser nobility appointed by European sovereigns. As direct servants of the monarch, they were charged with the administration of sovereign law, and it was important for their clothing to reflect the legitimacy and authority of the sovereign's rule.

Therefore, early judicial and legal dress borrowed heavily from the styles of the church's legal representatives, while reflecting the new era now defined by royal rule. Judicial Dress During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, judicial dress varied considerably between nations due to the decentralization of ownership and rule in Europe. Ecclesiastical costume history, however, assured some general similarities in basic judicial and legal dress among European nations. Judges of the early modern period wore sleeved tunics, and over this, wide-sleeved pleated gowns or robes made from cloth, wool, or silk. This garment, previously worn by monks, was sometimes referred to as a supertunica. High judges might wear tabards (essentially, a sleeveless version of the supertunica) instead. Judges also wore closed mantles covering the shoulders to the middle-upper arm, and rolled hoods or casting hoods of the same fabric, lined with miniver. For ceremonial occasions, some judges wore a shorter cloak, called an armelausa (in France, called a manteau), made from the same fabric. Despite this basic attire, there was little consistency in color of judicial uniform.

James Robinson Planché summarizes this point well in his Cyclopædia of Costume: "Information respecting the official costume of the Bench and the Bar is abundant; but, unfortunately, the descriptions are not so clear as they are copious" (Planché, p. 426). Royalty frequently dressed judges in ornate, regal costumes of scarlet and black, although vibrant hues of pink, violet, and royal blue were also common. Color reflected royal taste, but also judicial rank or position, and lower judicial officials wore different colors than presiding judges. Justices of the peace, appointed on a local basis to police the king's laws and manage local affairs, wore lay dress associated with their middle-class rank. Upon the head, members of the early modern judiciary typically wore a coif, a white circular lawn or silk cap, along with a black silk or velvet skullcap on top. Such head coverings bore resemblance to academic dress, which signified the possession of a doctorate degree. In fact, "The Order of the Coif" was a name given to a group of British sergeants-at-law, a special legal class who comprised the body from which high judicial offices was chosen.

Judges often wore another hat on top of the coif and skullcap, particularly in France and Germany. Early Legal Dress Early costume for lawyers, also known as barristers, solicitors, advocates, or councillors, depending on the country, bore strong similarities to that of judges. During the Middle Ages, lawyers were considered to be apprentices to the judiciary, which explain the likeness in dress. Like their judicial counterparts, barristers in Britain also wore closed gowns made of cloth or silk. These garments, however, had raised, stuffed shoulders and elbow-length glove sleeves. Even before Queen Mary's death, these gowns were predominantly black, in accordance with the rules of the Inns of Court that organized barrister education and membership. Like judges, barristers also wore coifs and skullcaps, as well as white ruff-like bands around the neck. Solicitors, who unlike barristers, did not have the right to present in court, wore long, open black gowns with winged sleeves, although by the seventeenth century, they had lost their special dress and instead wore common business attire. French advocates wore wide, colored, bell-sleeved gowns, often in scarlet, with shoulder pieces and chaperons like their judicial counterparts.

They also wore white bands and stiff black toques called bonnets carrés. Regulations of the Seventeenth Century Historically, monarchs set out complex dictates on judicial and legal dress, which reflected that individual sovereign's taste. By the seventeenth century, as countries continued to centralize and codify legal order, it became important to systemize the mélange of customs and traditions relating to legal and judicial dress. This did not, however, result in a simple, concise, framework for dress-in fact, the exact opposite! In 1602, France regulated, by royal mandate, the dress of its judges and lawyers of all ranks. Although scarlet still predominated, the monarchy dictated the specific robe fabrics, colors, and lengths for its judges, advocates, and clerks. It even made distinctions for colors by seasons and days of the week. Britain had similarly intricate legislation, which resulted in complicated and confusing dictates. According to the 1635 Decree by Westminster, the monarch became the exclusive administrator of judicial dress. From spring to mid-autumn, it was mandatory for judges to wear a taffeta-lined black or violet silk robe with deep cuffs lined in silk or fur, a matching hood, and a mantle.

Judges were also required to wear coifs, caps, and a cornered cap on top. During the winter months, the taffeta lining was replaced with miniver to keep judges warm. Special scarlet dress replaced this standard costume on holy days or the visit of the Lord Mayor. There was no parallel code for barristers' dress at this time, and the Inns of Court governed bar costume. During the same time, Britain also regulated the judicial dress of the American colonies. Settlers followed codes and ceremonies of British law, and while little has been written on judicial and legal dress in the colonies, scarlet, which was the ceremonial and traditional color for British judges, was de rigueur for the colonial bench. American dress, however, did not mirror the same level of British complexity, given the puritan and austere circumstances and culture of the region. Adoption of the Wig Even the dignified and traditional dress of the legal and judicial system has not been isolated from whims of popular fashion. The wigs worn by members of the British bench and bar are perfect examples of this idea. Fashion has always influenced its styles, from changes in sleeve to ruffs and sashes.

Charles II imported the wig from France in 1660, and during the seventeenth century, they were a fashionable item for all gentlemen of wealthy and established social classes. Made from human or horsehair, they sat very high at the crown, and cascaded in curls over the shoulders. Judges and barristers took to wearing these fashionable full-bottomed wigs with their robes, no doubt under the recommendation of Charles II. By the middle of the eighteenth century, wigs fell out of favor with the general public, but legal professionals adopted the wig as a vital part of the legal and judicial uniform. In the early 2000s, high-court judges and the Queen's Counsel in Britain and the Commonwealth continue to wear full-bottomed wigs for ceremonial occasions, and shorter bench wigs are customary for daily courtroom proceedings. Barristers wear an even more abbreviated version of the seventeenth-century wig, known as a tie-wig, which sits back from the forehead to expose the hairline.

Legal Dress in the Early 2000s The styles put into place in the seventeenth century for the legal and judicial community have persisted in their basic form, although styles for sleeves, collars, and accoutrements like wigs and bands have changed, according to lay fashion and monarchial taste. Central governments rather than monarchs regulate legal and judicial dress, and complex and confusing directives, in principle, continue to exist. In Britain, judges, barristers, and court clerks sitting in high courts are generally required to wear black silk or stuff gowns over suits, and a short bench or tie-wig and bands. Black robes for judges account for more of their dress than in previous times, and high court, district, and circuit courts prescribe their use all or much of the time. More frequently, colored mantles or sashes denote the type of case and court a judge presides over. Scarlet robes remain reserved for ceremonial occasions, as well as for some high-court criminal cases in winter. Violet is also used for certain cases according to season and court. Judges may be called to add or remove cuffs, scarves, mantles, and hoods of varying color and fabric at different times and seasons.

These rules, however, are frequently amended and discarded in practice by judges in particular, who may dispense of their wigs or robes, either due to weather or due to special circumstances, such as cases involving children. Barristers' dress remains more clear-cut, and in court they continue to wear black silk or cloth gowns, tie-wigs, and bands, depending on the seniority of their position. Solicitors and lower court officials do not wear wigs. Justices of the Peace, now predominantly confined to name only, do not wear any special dress. Why Judges Wear Black Free use of color in judicial dress lasted in European countries until the late seventeenth century, when the black robe, which many consider to be the traditional judicial color, became the preferred color for daily judicial dress. France adopted black as the color of dress for its judges, and historians believe that the British tradition of black robes began when barristers and judges adopted mourning dress for Queen Mary II in 1694. Although high court judges eventually reverted back to colors of scarlet and violet, it remained for barristers, lower-court judges, and court clerks in Britain.

By the eighteenth century, American judges had followed suit, though as a symbol of liberty from British control over the American colonies. Like Britain, France has also retained its complex guidelines for members of the legal profession. French high court judges traditionally wear bell-sleeve cloth or silk black gowns and heavy draped manteaus lined with rabbit fur. Over the coat, they also wear fur shoulder pieces upon which they hang national medals. Like Britain, this full dress is not always abided by in daily practice. For ceremonial occasions, high-court judges may wear scarlet robes. Lower-court judges wear similar robes in black or scarlet with black satin cuffs. Unlike their British or American peers, these robes button down the front, and have trains that can be tucked up inside the robe. Additionally, they wear black moiré belts and epitoges, or shawls tipped in ermine or rabbit, along white cloth fichus. They also continue to wear black toques. Although French advocates wear business attire outside of the courtroom, they still wear black robes like their lower court judicial counterparts in court trials. They can, but rarely do, wear toques as well.

French court clerks wear dress similar to advocates, but this depends on the formality and level of the court. Other European countries follow similar national judicial-costume history, and even the European Community's high judges wear distinctive scarlet or royal blue judicial robes, although this is governed by tradition rather than written statute. Lawyers and advocates presenting at the European Courts of Justice wear their national legal costume, whether it be plain dress or robe. Unlike in Europe, both national and local governments regulate judicial and legal dress in the United States, and American legal costume is confined only to judges. All levels of the judiciary wear long, black, cloth or silk gowns with bell-sleeves and yoked necklines. They wear no wig, special headdress or collar, although male judges are expected to wear a shirt and tie underneath their robes. There is no specific dress code for court clerks appearing in courts, although professional dress is assumed or required. Justices of the Peace, now largely succeeded in authority by organized lower-level courts, wear lay dress as well. Production and Retailing Legal and judicial dress is produced by specialized manufacturers and sold through specialty legal retailers or by companies that also cater to academic and religious vestments.

Legal dress can be quite expensive, and in Britain, a black judicial gown may cost between £600 ($960) and £850 ($1,360), and a full-bottomed judicial wig, £1,600 ($2,560). Such expenses have actually resulted in a thriving market for used wigs in Britain. Some high-court judges in Britain and other European countries are given a stipend for their judicial attire, but lower-court judges, barristers, and advocates, must provide for their own. In America, judges are expected to pay for their judicial dress, but pricing is far more moderate. Modernization There has been considerable debate since the mid-1980s about the relevance of traditional legal and judicial dress in modern society. The United States and many European countries have relaxed regulations regarding such attire, particularly for judges, and judges have had the ability to exercise their individual judgment in such matters. Judges in Britain have chosen to dispense with wigs and robes upon certain situations when they want to convey a feeling of equality to laypersons, and Muslim and Sikh judges wear their turbans instead of wigs. Modernization has also included the exercise of individual judicial tastes as well.

In 1999 American Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist chose to wear a robe decorated with gold stripes on each sleeve at the Impeachment Trial of President William Jefferson Clinton. Justice Byron Johnson of the Idaho Supreme Court in the United States chose to wear a blue robe, rather than a black one when he sat on the bench. Although both examples are American, they reflect the questioning of relevance of judicial and legal dress in the early twenty-first century, and how it relates to the role of judges and lawyers in community organizations. Another example of modernization is the ongoing debate regarding the relaxation of legal and judicial garb in the United Kingdom, and specifically the abolishment of wigs. In 1992, and again in 2003, the judicial system in Britain debated the redesign of judicial and legal dress in order to be more relevant to society. With this has come the question of whether to retain the wig. In addition to being a visual guide for members of the legal profession to that of their peers, the image of judges and barristers in their traditional occupational dress for society reminds the public of the dignity and gravity of the law, and the impartiality of the judicial system.

It also acts as a disguise to protect judges and barristers outside of the courtroom, as well as a tool for downplaying differences in age and gender. Hence, the decision to retain, relax, or disband with legal and judicial dress, extends beyond a discussion of the physical garments. Current debates about judicial dress are also deliberations over the function of governments and tradition in the structure of civil life, and the role of a judicial representative in the modern execution of justice. See also Royal and Aristocratic Dress . Bibliography It should be noted that there are very few books devoted to legal and judicial dress, and even fewer incorporating issues of modernization. Information can often be found in the occupational dress section in general costume histories, but books specifically dedicated to the history of judicial and legal practice too often omit dress from discussions. History journals and legal journals have been the most helpful sources, and information covering Britain and America are most predominant. Journals documenting parliamentary discussions and debates are also useful as primary source material. Hargreaves-Mawdsley, W. N. A History of Legal Dress in Europe until the End of the Eighteenth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.

An indispensable authoritative book of European legal dress before the eighteenth century. MacClellan, Elisabeth. Historic Dress in America, 1607-1870. Philadelphia, Pa.: George W. Jacobs and Co., 1904. Good for judicial dress and history in the American colonies. O'Neill, Stephen. "Why Are Judges' Robes Black?" Massachusetts Legal History: A Journal of the Supreme Judicial Court Historical Society 7 (2001): 119-123. Very useful for American dress. Planché, James Robinson. Cyclopædia of Costume or Dictionary of Dress. Volume 8: The Dictionary. London: Chatto and Windus, Piccadilly, 1876. Very helpful as a detailed source of early legal garments, given the confusing nature of the dress. Extensive reference to primary sources. Webb, Wilfred M. The Heritage of Dress. London: E. Grant Richards, 1907. Good discussion about the history and vestiges of early legal dress. Yablon, Charles M. "Judicial Drag: An Essay on Wigs, Robes and Legal Change." Wisconsin Law Review.

5 (1995): 1129-1153. Lively, entertaining article encompassing the history, political and sociology behind judicial dress. Worth tracking down. Was this page useful?

Question: Which fur is traditionally used to trim the robes of peers and judges?
Answer: Ermine